Eberron: My issue with the 4e setting

[Peraion Graufalke]

Dragonborn are, naturally, from Arkhosia.

Uhm, they're from Argonnessen (and Q'barra), actually. Arkhosia is in the PoL setting.

 

[Obryn]

Uhm, they're from Argonnessen (and Q'barra), actually. Arkhosia is in the PoL setting.

DOH!

What he said.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

I'm not trying to mis-characterize his point, I just simply can't see any other context in which it can be applied. The Eberron Campaign world now allows for any race to have any Dragonmark... if a PC at another DM's table wants that to happen. It avoids having any such change within the setting itself. Unless Crothian himself plans to do so, that won't be an issue. I can't see how one could be concerned about the change, given that the change isn't reflected in the setting itself, but only in games run by other DMs for other groups. So unless one is upset about how those groups are playing, I just don't see anything that would actually be an issue...

I don't see any evidence that Crothian is upset about how other groups play the game; he stated that he has an issue with a change in a published campaign setting. It's just a statement of opinion. I find it baffling that so many posters seem to take issue with his personal preference. So unless one is upset about how Crothian's groups are playing, I just don't see anything that would actually be an issue.

 

[Voadam]

My biggest issue was that any race can have any Dragonmark.

Liar!

It is a good change so you cannot have an issue with it.

When you say you do not like it you are just wrong.

The only reason you say that is because you are a big meanie.

Why are you such a meanie? Why?

Take it back then shut your pie hole meanie.

 

[Hellcow]

This is true -- as far as it goes. The flavor, however, is that all the Cleric's powers come from his deity. That means that a 10th level cleric has (according to p143 of the DMG and the class abilities of the cleric in PHB) 12-13 powers attributable to his deity, while the Mark of Healing doesn't actually give him any, only augments existing powers (slightly). Even then, the Mark doesn't do jack during the short rests between encounters because few conditions last beyond the encounter.

I don't have time to read through the entire thread, but I just wanted to speak to this.

Flavor is what you make it.

Take a half-elf storm sorcerer with the Mark of Storm. You could choose to look at it as "He could be a storm sorcerer without the Mark of Storm. Therefore, all the mark does is add a touch of wind."

But personally, if I'm playing that character, I look at it completely differently. I say "He's a storm sorcerer because he has the Mark of Storm. Every power he uses is channeled through his mark - which is also why his powers are greater than those of an unmarked sorcerer. His mark is what lets him touch the storm, and he draws every power through it."

When you look at things this way, you don't NEED multiple feats per mark. Because every thunder or lightning power that the sorcerer gets is a result of his unlocking a new power of his mark. The power of his mark IS growing, every time he gains a new power that it touches.

Essentially, with the old model of the Mark of Healing, you got one extra cure light wounds per day. You use it, and it's done. That's your mark. With the current model, every time you heal (or use the Heal skill to give someone their second wind, if you're not a character with healing powers) you tap into the power of your mark. It's a more pervasive effect. You can choose to say that the cleric's powers all come from his god - I say that when he's HEALING, his powers are at the very least channeled THROUGH his mark. And remember, this is Eberron - so we don't even know if the cleric's god actually exists. While we certainly know that his mark does. In 3E Eberron, we stated that there were many Jorasco adepts who worshipped no god, but drew their divine power from their devotion to healing. I certainly allow this in 4E, personally using the CD feat of the Path of Light for these agnostic healers. They are channeling divine energy through their marks, and can still stagger the undead with this radiant force. But they don't believe that this power comes from a goddess; they believe it is pure lifeforce channeled through their marks.

With that said, a house rule I do use is to allow dragonmarked characters to use the rituals associated with their marks without having to have a ritual book, and having them learn those rituals automatically at the appropriate level. They still have to pay component costs, but the point is that for them, it's not a "ritual" - it's unlocking the power of the mark. In my opinion, the pen-and-paper rituals were developed as a result of copying what the dragonmarks did - that for a long time in Khorvaire, the ONLY way to get arcane lock was to get someone with the Mark of Warding to perform it for you. if you want to give the marks greater weight, make this the case. As it stands, Fluid Funds is only usable by characters with the Mark of Warding. What if the same was true of Arcane Lock and Eye of Alarm? What if Secret Page and Comprehend Language were bound to the Mark of Scribing? If House Jorasco are the ONLY people who can perform Cure Disease, it suddenly becomes very easy to see why they dominate the field... and why, in Eberron, if you need to shake off that sickness NOW, you go to a hospital and not to a temple. If you want a halfway point, keep these chosen rituals open to any character - but double the component cost without the mark. So others CAN cure disease - but it's easy to see why Jorasco dominates the market.

For me, the ritual effects should be more important than the in-combat effects. The fact that the character with the Mark of Healing can give you a saving throw is a nifty trick. But the fact that he can cure diseases is what keeps him in business... and if you say that he's the ONLY one who can cure disease, then it's huge.

This is too much of a change to the core system for us to put it in the book. But it does give the houses and marks much more weight if you want to do that. Again, if Orien is the ONLY place for teleportation, it's a very handy thing to have an Orien heir in your party.

But the key point is that flavor is what you make of it. When I make a dragonmarked character, i always reflavor the powers to feel connected to the Mark. If someone with the Mark of Warding is using a power that gains a benefit from the mark, then in my mind that power is coming FROM THE MARK.

Oh, tied to this: Something I pushed for that I don't think made it into the final book was to say that dragonmarks still do grow as their power grows... which is to say, as the character gains more powers that benefit from the mark. With that said, they don't have to have a simple three sizes any more. If you look at the pictures and assign a numerical value to each mark:
1. Least
2. Lesser
3. Greater
4. Siberys
... then you could now have a seventh level character with a mark of size 1.7, not quite at the "Lesser" level but moving towards this.

I do this, and as a result when looking at a mark you actually get a greater sense of the character's capabilities. if you see someone with a "greater" dragonmark, you know that they have some very significant power that they can draw through the mark. But again, that power ISN'T three abilities each of which can be used once per day; it probably means that they're high paragon or possibly epic.

Beyond this, there remains the point that marks let you use the dragonmarked focus items that form the backbone of house business - creation forges, speaking stones, and the like.

The core point is a good one, and it was the question we struggled with. In 3E, the Mark of Healing was more useful as a back-up heal for a non-healer than it was for a cleric. The Mark of Making was a better deal for anyone but an artificer. Under the current model, the marks are considerably less useful for the jack-of-all-trades effect - but have a stronger sense of why these houses can dominate a field (especially if you use my restricted ritual access houserule). The key is whether you see the mark as one feat... or if you look at it as being an integral part of each power that it enhances, which is what I do.

 

[Hellcow]

And speaking to the any-race-can-have-any-dragonmark issue...

That to is what you make of it. The ECG notes that this is incredibly rare; that the DM should avoid making NPCs with out of house dragonmarks; that it may be the first time in history a dragonmarked house has encountered such an individual; and that they very well may not like it.

Personally, as a DM, I simply won't allow it unless the PC has a really interesting story attached and is prepared to have a very interesting life - and I will discuss this with any PC as we are going through the process of character creation. I've seen people come up with stories that ARE very interesting, that make me say "Sure, I can work with that" - but which are based around the fact that such marks are incredibly rare, and that the PC is one of the first in history to have such a thing.

Sure, you can say "But any PC can have one, so that makes them commonplace." Not in my eyes. Because NPCs aren't supposed to have them - and in any given campaign I run, there are only six PCs in the world. Sure there are times I've run crossover campaigns - but more often I run multiple iterations of the same campaign, and the PCs of group A don't exist in the same reality as the PCs of group B. Not so great if you WANT lots of crossover action... but as long as that's not an issue, it keeps the PCs of each group feeling that the story is about THEM.

 

[Hellcow]

Oh, and speaking of ritual components... something else that I do but that I don't think made it to the book is to say that in Eberron, residuum is highly refined Eberron dragonshards. This firmly establishes the role of dragonshards in the magical economy. Dragonshards are the fuel that keeps civilization going - the equivalent of oil in our world, and something there will always be a market for as long as society uses rituals. I allow people to use "raw" unrefined Eberron dragonshards as ritual fuel, but they get much less of the potential value out of it than using the refined residuum.

 

[Grymar]

Thanks for the thoughts, KB. While I'm still playing 3.5/Pathfinder, I like some of the ideas that 4e has brought to the table with the Dragonmarked benefits. I may have to see about giving a small bonus to people in the proper class, such as +2 to healing spells for Mark of Healing characters.

 

[Hellcow]

I don't like that any race can have any dragonmark. It doesn't matter if it is a PC or NPC or if we have an example NPC with the ability.

Speaking specifically to "the rules allow NPCs to have dragonmarks"... it's true. They do. They allow the DM to do whatever he wants. but it's clearly called out that this is abnormal for the setting. Looking to page 18 of the ECG:

• The character might be a member of the dragonmarked house and its bloodline. The character’s race must match the bloodline of the house exactly—a half-elf who has the Mark of Shadow (an elf mark) can’t be part of the bloodline. Such a character has the most in common with NPC dragonmarked characters and seems normal to the house.
• The character might be a member of a race unconnected to the dragonmarked houses... Such a mark has nothing to do with bloodline and everything to do with the touch of the Prophecy. These characters are extremely rare—It’s not recommended that you create NPCs who fall into this category unless the story of your campaign demands it.

It's your story. Do what you want. But it's not the default of the world.

A key point here is that all 4E books are designed to be accessible to all people. Dragonmarks are a unique element of the Eberron campaign setting, but they want you to be able to say "I like those - I'll use them in my homebrew." And in your homebrew, you may decide that you want gnomes to have the Mark of Making and dwarves to have the Mark of Scribing. Within the Eberron setting, the marks are associated with the races listed on the table on page 19 of the ECG and page 21 of the EPG. A mark that clashes with these tables is, within the setting, a remarkable reflection of the Prophecy or aberrant in nature, either of which could make life difficult for the PCs. But if you simply like the concept of the Mark of Shadow and want to use it OUTSIDE the setting, there's no reason it has to be tied to elves.

So. The rules allow you to do what you want. But the tables on ECG 19 and EPG 21 clearly state the way the marks manifest on NPCs in the setting and thus the way they have influenced the world to this point. The rules ALLOW you to break this restriction - but they call out that this is remarkable for the setting and discourage it for NPCs - because in doing it, you change the flavor of the setting.

 

[ryryguy]

But the key point is that flavor is what you make of it. When I make a dragonmarked character, i always reflavor the powers to feel connected to the Mark. If someone with the Mark of Warding is using a power that gains a benefit from the mark, then in my mind that power is coming FROM THE MARK.

Oh, tied to this: Something I pushed for that I don't think made it into the final book was to say that dragonmarks still do grow as their power grows... which is to say, as the character gains more powers that benefit from the mark. With that said, they don't have to have a simple three sizes any more. If you look at the pictures and assign a numerical value to each mark:
1. Least
2. Lesser
3. Greater
4. Siberys
... then you could now have a seventh level character with a mark of size 1.7, not quite at the "Lesser" level but moving towards this.

I really like these ideas.

Do you (Keith or anybody) have any ideas how these ideas might apply to the few marks that don't really have combat uses and/or directly magnify powers? I.e., Scribing, Hospitality, Making, and Detection. In some cases I can see a few things you might tie to these marks, but it's definitely harder for these than, e.g., thunder and lightning powers for Storm...